hurricanesfandomcom-20200216-history
Forum:2007 Atlantic hurricane season
September Week 1 98L.INVEST That new wave out in the Atlantic has gained a lot of convection and is now an invest. In fact, this thing already looks close to a tropical depression. Bob rulz 12:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC) :I wouldn't be surprised, looking at the models. The thing on top of the page had similar aspirations. And, it is SEPTEMBER. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 14:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC) ::Look at it... isn't it beautiful? [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 14:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC) :::I'm betting 40% chance for to become Gabrielle RoswellAtup 15:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC) ::::You know what? I'd up the stakes about 15%. This guy is looking pretty good. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 15:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC) SHIPS puts it at hurricane, cat 1+ [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 18:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC) :The last thing we need a Cape Verde party. Dean, Felix,... -- [[User:SkyFury|''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC) ::Floater's been put up. And look at the GFDL model, a hurricane as well. Imagine what could happen if it goes up the East Coast, or maybe a Frances-esque track. This is an unfriendly bout of Westerners. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 19:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC) :::Convection flaring close to the center of low pressure (there should be a word for that other than "center"). [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 19:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC) HWRF goes ''eerily similar to Dean. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 19:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC) :NOAA is stating a possible formation in the next 48 hours. Dean, then Felix, and Gabrielle? We shall find out in the next day or two. - Enzo Aquarius 01:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC) ::Looking awfully ominous right now. -- [[User:SkyFury|''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 01:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :::Or maybe not, it's looking less organized. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 01:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC) ::::It looks pretty terrible right now, but it's moving into an area of less shear, and the environment is a lot moister than when 94L came through, so I still think it has a chance to develop. |'C A I N E R||''ninety-one''| 02:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :Because, you know, Felix already set to hit more or less the exact same area as Dean and at major hurricane strength wasn't bad enough news. --Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 06:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Any hope of this heading for the Carolina Coast? We need the rain badly. '''Other IP 06:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :It looks terrible right now. I don't see anything coming from this for a while. -- [[User:SkyFury|''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC) ::Yeah, too bad. (Other IP XD). But not really, considering what's happening over there near the Yucatan. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 17:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :::Dissipated. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 00:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC) 07L.GABRIELLE AoI: Off Georgia Coast There's a low associated with a decaying frontal boundary, and could possibly develop into a topical depression. It's looks good at the moment, but we'll have to see if anything to worry about comes from this. |'C A I N E R||''ninety-one''| 17:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :Wow, that is impressive. I didn't even notice it (eyes automatically drawn to the major hurricane in the carib). I can see a TD out of this... at least a 99L. ''Cyclone1(18:31 UTC -2/09/2007) ::Hey, that's my house! That's MY...house! Don't be comin' into my house uninvited ;D. It's headed east though and could develop. Time will tell. -- [[User:SkyFury|'''''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|''Fury]] 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :::Holy cow! CMC puts this as a major hurricane ploghing for New England! Is this impossible? 2007Astro'sHurricane 23:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Anything's possible in the tropics, but I wouldn't bet on it. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 01:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :::::-points to "interesting models" section below- Gotta love the CMC. Bob rulz 04:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ::::::Looking good, and it has NOAA's attention as well, issuing it's little '48 hour development' notice. - Enzo Aquarius 15:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Goddammit, this season just elevated itself to unheard of stature with double cat fives, and now this thing is rearing its ugly head (with a potential storm from 94L)! This is NOT (ok, it is) fun! [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 18:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC) 99L.INVEST There is a floater up monitoring this system on the NHC, declaring it "Invest" but not 99L. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 20:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :99L confirmed on NRL. Most models develop this one (CMC puts it at what looks like a new world record). [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ::Looks better that it did 24 hours ago and better than 98L. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 21:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :::I say 55% Gabrielle, and 75% TD-7. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 21:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Looking very impressive! If that ridge builds, it should take whatever 99L becomes into the Mid Atlantic, or New England. Let's hope the ridge doesn't build. 'Cyclone1(21:54 UTC -3/09/2007) :::::The ridge is probably building as we speak. Anyway, if CMC is anywhere near the truth, the Yankees might be wiped out once and for all! Woohoo! But the rest of Manhattan might be wiped out... Woohoo! Seriously, there's some risky things up there. [[User:68-100-190-56|'''IP]] 22:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC) In a couple of days, we could see something but not before then I wouldn't think. -- [[User:SkyFury|''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 23:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :Who said it was going to happen fast? ; ) [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 23:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ::The models are in. HWRF predicts a hurricane in a few days, w/ a depression soon and slow TS development. GFDL coming in soon. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 00:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC) :::GFDL as a moderate hurricane, keeping intensity over a few days. Both predict this thing to be HUGE. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 00:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Some interesting models coming through, though what's most interesting is the one from LGEM, which puts it through central Florida into the Gulf of Mexico with a course towards Louisiana. :S - Enzo Aquarius 02:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC) :::::Look at it now... I say 80% chance of what GFDL and HWRF say. They're never this in agreement. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 10:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC) If you look at the difference between yesterday and today, it's getting much better Organized. I say Depression at 11 PM Advisories, Tropical Storm by 4 PM Advisory on Wednesday, and Hurricane by the morning after. :Judging by the organization, if it gets Depression status, I don't think we'll have to wait long. I predict Depression status by either the 2 PM or 5 PM advisory - Enzo Aquarius 15:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC) ::I don't know about that but it could become a depression sometime tonight. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 16:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC) :::It's not yet a depression, but look at it! The low's surrounded by convection now, all we have to do now is wait for the update [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 19:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Still saying it comes up in the 5 PM EDT update. - Enzo Aquarius 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC) 'SH!T! The GFDL takes it right into my vacation house as a cat 2, then up the coast as a TS! [[User:68-100-190-56|'''IP]] 20:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC) :Not yet guys, it's still only an INVEST. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC) ::THREE models take this into the mid-Atlantic/New england area as a major hurricane. CMC, GFDL, and NAM. The GFDL as a category three and the CMC and NAM as like category 6's. Cyclone1(21:02 UTC -4/09/2007) :::Dang this is taking awhile. :S - Enzo Aquarius 21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Where do you get intensity from obscure models like NAM? Yeah, I really am scared of CMC's, it puts it at like, 850 mb right into my vacation home. The Outer Banks will be... What Outer Banks?! [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC) :::::This is starting to get the attention of people now (CNN was just talking about it now. Yes, I know, I watch CNN too much, it's the only American 24/7 news channel I get. :P) - Enzo Aquarius 00:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC) :::::OMG! 40% of models develop this into a hurricane making landfall on the Carolinas/New England, half of that 40% develop this into a major hurricane, and almost all of the remaining models develop this into at least a depression. Both Weather Underground and AccuWeather are watching this system closely, by the way. 2007Astro'sHurricane 00:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC) From the 2pm TWD: "AN AIR FORCE RESERVE HURRICANE HUNTER AIRCRAFT IS EN ROUTE TO INVESTIGATE THE SYSTEM THIS AFTERNOON. STAY TUNED." Don't touch that dial! It's just like reality TV :D. -- [[User:SkyFury|''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC) :It's looking like 96L now, the only difference is that the conditions are much more favorable (and the window is longer). [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 19:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC) :: Recon has found TS force winds within it........ Anung Mwka 20:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC) ::TS Gabrielle at 5? GFDL says Cat 3 into North Carolina with a Cat 1 continuing up the coast thereafter. Will this be Ophelia v2.0, or a real disaster? 130.64.137.61 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC) :::The NHC is kidding themselves. This is a depression. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 20:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC) ::::I'm thinking more like STD 07; NHC will most likely discount the TS winds they found, and it still is frontal looking. That being said, I expect it to form into S/TS Gabrielle in the next 12-24 hours. |'C A I N E R||''ninety-one| 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC) :::::You know what's interesting? The NHC should take our (whole community) opinions, because since we have a vastly larger population of forecasters, and thus the majority is more often right. That being said, they're idiots (not really, but it's fun to say). I see no reason why they should discount the winds (they didn't in Ethel). [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP]] 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC) No. They have PhD's, we don't. That's a big difference. I think this storm is almost there, even though NHC didn't really hint at that. Conditions are forecast to become more favorable and I don't think this thing's going away. -- [[User:SkyFury|''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 21:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC) :Plus, given all the flak the NHC took over naming Barry earlier this year, I couldn't really blame them for being careful with debatable upgrades - and that is what 99 is right now. A good case could probably be made right now either for upgrading or not upgrading. Since 99 is extremely unlikely to make landfall in the next 24 hours, it's specific designation is not a matter of great urgency.. --Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 21:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC) ::Calm down, I just like shredding the NHC when they didn't do anything wrong! Is that so wrong? Seriously though, I don't know what came over me then, I think it might have been my brother ("attention deficit" is my life). Not that PhD's can predict hurricanes (imagine the NHC, during Epsilon, shaking their PhD's like magic eight balls). It just really looks better than INVEST, especially now that convection clouds are moving over the low again. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 22:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC) :::Yikes! Last time I checked, which was a few hours ago, 90% models predict at least depression, 80% for landfall, 70% for at least TS, 60% for hurricane at landfall, and 40% for major hurricane at landfall. That's not even the weird part, the storm is very favorable for developement, and it's not even tropical! 2007Astro'sHurricane 01:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Very favorable? Conditions are awful right now. 'Cyclone1(01:56 UTC -6/09/2007) Awful? Actually, right now, yeah, they are, because the storm's being ripped to pieces! NHC is no longer considering tropical development. [[User:68-100-190-56|'''IP]] 10:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC) :My my, look at that. That's interesting. The frontal convection is separating from the low, and the low is developing it's own small patch of deepish convection. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 19:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC) ::Looking as good as ever this morning. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 10:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC) :::Indeed, NOAA has issued a Special Tropical Disturbance Statement this morning (Got me excited :P). A Hurricane Hunter aircraft is being sent out this afternoon, plus it appears to be organizing more. This system may finally develop into something later today. - Enzo Aquarius 15:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC) ::::We could be looking at Gabby here guys. -- [[User:SkyFury|''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 16:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC) That's looking really good! Not to mention that conditions (and organization) have DEFINITELY improved. If recon gets Trop (>= depression) winds again, then that will be the end beginning? of that. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 18:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC) :Still lingering there, could turn Tropical Depression at any time. - Enzo Aquarius 23:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC) ::Slippy little bugger (see below). Should come out at either the 8 or 11 advisory. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 23:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC) :::Nothing at 8, let's see at 11. - Enzo Aquarius 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Well it'd better develop soon, we need some more rain here in southern Ontario. In fact, we need about four inches more rain to replenish our soils before autumn. I just hope it doesn't become a repeat of JUAN or HORTENSE or HAZEL. 2007Astro'sHurricane 00:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC) There are so many humor books about Canada I've read that I pretty much associate Ontario with "consisting of Toronto and four square miles of actual farmland". Sorry about that. Seriously, I doubt it'll get that far over, and GFDL is predicting a hurricane, so I keep my prediction for the 11 pm advisory. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 01:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC) 07L.GABRIELLE And there she is! Not offical on the NHC yet, upgrade at 11. Skipping TD-7 status. Nice, third storm this year to do so. 'Cyclone1(02:19 UTC -8/09/2007) Subtropical Storm Gabrielle Hmm, subtrop? I didn't really expect that. ''Cyclone1(02:33 UTC -8/09/2007) :WOW i just went on to the Atlantic Hurricanne Page and saw SS Gabrielle i was not expecting to see gabrielle for a few days yet and i was thinking about going to bed !!!!! Jason Rees 02:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC) ::She's finally here, though Gabrielle will probably only reach Tropical Storm status, being so close to the shore and so far from the Tropics. Expected to hit the Carolinas and Virginia, then move upshore. - Enzo Aquarius 03:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC) :::"Expected to strengthen as she gains tropical characteristics". I still say a hurricane from this, because I also expect rapid development into a tropical storm, but there's a good chance it won't happen. She's also looking rather pretty (for an SS) today. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 11:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC) AoI: Off the coast of Africa There's probably some reason why no-one's put this up yet, but I can't stand it. There's a low off the coast, and a convective, multiple-area tropical wave. The models say "yes", NHC says "what", and I'm going with my eyes and the models. Opinions? [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 23:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC) :Our eyes have been on this darn 99L.Invest system. :P But yes, this system does look interesting. Let's give it a couple of days or so and see what happens. - Enzo Aquarius 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC) ::Yeah, 99L is a slippy little bugger. I'm putting INVEST development Sunday morning, though that might be a little early. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 23:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC) :::With Gabrielle out, again everyone forgets our little AoI friend, who is about three times more likely to become a hurricane. Although Gabby does have some really nice looking TROPICAL features... Anyway, this guy is getting more convection from another thunderstorm (MCS perhaps? Probably not) moving off the coast. It looks much worse today, but still, I think this guy has potential. It's nothing like Dean-wave, or Felix-wave, but it does have potential. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC) ::::EVERYBODY PAY ATTENTION! LOOK AT WHAT'S OFF THE COAST! For whatever the reason, it seems that the thunderstorm off the coast has developed an associated low, and it already looks like a depression. It's kinda far north, and I'm not so sure it's associated with this one. However, this one looks pretty awesome as well. Both of them are supposed to curve north pretty soon after development. Opinions? [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 14:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC) First system is up on the TWO, and it doesn't seem there's anything stopping it. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 14:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC) :What's wrong with the NRL? there are now two areas potential for development and they didn't upgrade either even just a mere invest??? RoswellAtup 15:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC) INVEST reports Is there someplace where there is some text on the INVEST reports? The NRL site doesn't seem to carry text, until it reaches at least tropical depression status. 4.154.5.226 06:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC) :Not as far as I know. Bob rulz 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Interesting models I don't know if this is important, but I found a very interesting Fujiwhara interaction on an eight day old CMC forecast. Link 68-100-190-56 16:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC) :Edit - If anyone finds any really interesting models, it could be interesting to group them here. Here's one of four cyclones forming (again from CMC): Link 68-100-190-56 16:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC) ::Gotta love the CMC. Bob rulz 17:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC) :::The most recent one turns Dean into a cat 5. 68-100-190-56 18:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC) ::::I wouldn't rule that out. Bob rulz 18:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC) I would trust the CMC on that count at this point. 68-100-190-56 21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Hmm... Sorry for the extra header, but we have plenty of them don't we? Anyway, there seems to be a (somewhat) consensus on the models that go out that far that in a few days, after this wave of Africa, we will have something tropical in nature. Check out the GFS and you'll see what I mean. Any ideas? IP 23:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Model predictions I remember last year seeing links to plots of model projections (on Wikipedia of course) for all invests. I can not seem to find the link, does anyone know what I'm talking about? -Runningonbrains 17:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC) :Hmm... No, I don't remember that. What kind of format were they in? IP 18:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Model runs and Model plots. -- RattleMan 22:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Model sites Could some of you provide the model sites you use? It would be very helpful to quite a lot of us. Thanks, IP 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC) :Here is a graphic model page that shows all the models at once. http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/omd/ops/weather/plots/storm_96.gif Just change the 96 in the URL to whatever the current invest is to see the model plots. 'Cyclone1(00:56 UTC -31/08/2007) ::Thanks. I've been there before, but frankly, I had no idea what it was ^-^' IP 01:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC) 2 Cat5 no other hurricanes Fourth time we have had two Cat 5 hurricanes in a season. This is the first of these where we haven't had an earlier hurricane of another category. This seems pretty weird. If you start looking for things like this, you probably find them nevertheless it still seems weird. crandles 81.86.39.6 12:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :1958 1977 1980 1992 had a category 5 as first hurricane of season so probably not all that weird. crandles 81.86.39.6 12:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ::What probability would you put on it? If first hurricane of season being cat5 is a 1 in ten chance (5 times in 57 years from 1950 when records become reasonable) and there is also a 1 in 10 chance of a second cat 5 in a season (4th time since 1950) then perhaps a 1 in 4 chance (happened in 1960 not in other 2 years / 4 occasions) of no hurricanes between two cat 5 hurricanes. Is 1 in 400 years a reasonable assessment of how unusual? crandles 81.86.39.6 12:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :::If there's a 1/10 chance of the first hurricane being a cat5 and a 1/10 chance of the second hurricane being a cat5 that means there's a 1/100 chance of the first two hurricanes being cat5. Pretty simple eh. But that's not a large enough sample set to make any kind of judgement on. Surely climatology and the favorable environment in the caribbean while there's an unfavorable environment elsewhere is more to blame. 66.243.195.90 16:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Both of you are somewhat incorrect, there has never been a statistical observation of two category fives forming one after another with only one storm in between (in the Atlantic basin) (Ethel was NOT a cat 5, and it shouldn't be considered one), thus raw statistics cannot be used to predict the probability of the event. That's pretty scary though. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :::::Discounting Ethel in 1960, this is the first time the first two hurricanes of the season were Category 5's. Another excuse for me to talk about just how amazing the West Pacific is: In 1997, that basin had three consecutive storms with winds of at least 180 mph! Man, I love that place! -- [[User:SkyFury|''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 21:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Then why don't you go live there? ; ) [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :I may well be wrong about Ethel but if so, should List_of_notable_Atlantic_hurricanes#Category_5_hurricanes and Hurricane_Ethel_%281960%29 be edited? :I don't expect my estimate of the odds to be perfect - odds depend on your subjective Bayesian priors. Yes the past isn't necessarily a guide to the future and all that. However it should be possible to make a subjective estimate of the odds and what else are you going to base it on? If there's a 1/10 chance of the first hurricane being a cat5 and a 1/10 chance of the second hurricane being a cat5 that means there's a 1/100 chance of the first two hurricanes being cat5. Pretty simple eh. :Possibly but also possibly wrong. If they are independent yes but there is the possibility that there is an relationship that makes this untrue. What does the data indicate? 24 Cat 5s in 57 years occuring independently would mean an expectation of ~6 years from 1950 with two cat 5 but we have only had 3. Maybe this is just chance or maybe there is a relationship that makes them unlikely to occur in same year/close to one another. A more important question might be whether the answer is changing with time due to global warming. My estimate could be a long way out. :Re "raw statistics cannot be used to predict the probability of the event" they cannot be used to calculate the odds with confidence but if you accept there is going to be huge error margins and still want to try then the raw data may still help - what else you are going to use? - a weather/climate model perhaps but you are still going to need to use the data to see if your model is plausible. crandles 88.105.72.76 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ::In a chaotic system like weather, there is no way to predict long term trends on a mesoscale level. Weather forecasts beyond 15 days tend to be unreliable and at 30 days they have no meaning whatsoever. The facts are that there is no way. Plus, this entire chain of reasoning is flawed because there are fluctuations of factors on many levels, from 10 years to hundreds of years. And Ethel was officially a category five, but the results are so dubious that I consider it impossible. But why argue? The facts are that the chances of this are pretty darned small, because it's never happened before. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 23:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :::Well I think I agree the chain of reasoning here is flawed and we are certainly never going to reach a decision on what the odds are. 'Pretty darn small' is as close as we might get. This crazy odds stuff was intended as a bit of fun. If however we were talking about total hurrince numbers then I would say you are protesting too much - weather forcasting beyond 15/30 days is impossible but that does not mean that climate forecasting is impossible. That would be like saying because I cannot predict the value of the next roll od a fair dice then I cannot predict the total of 1000 dice rolls will be close to 3500. "many levels, from 10 years to hundreds of years" - I can only assume you are implying AMO. The evidence for this is weak compared the evidence for the effect of global warming. AMO possibly does better at explaining hurricane numbers than global warming but if there is better evidence for global warming then it becomes more likely that it is a combination of global warming plus some other effects - perhaps things like deforrestation of Africa causing more dust storms. It is not easy to do attribution but it isn't impossible either. crandles 81.86.39.6 11:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Two cat5s at landfall without other category hurricanes wow the odds of that are somewhat lower. crandles 81.86.39.6 12:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC) :(Create an account, Randles, we'd love to have you.)2007 is now also the first year to see a hurricane make landfall from both oceans on the same day during the past half century. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC) ::June 2, Barry and Barbara. (TS) September 5. Felix and Henriette. (H) Both sets hit North America on the same day as each other. 'Cyclone1(22:24 UTC -5/09/2007) :::I thought he was referring to the fourth! (Henriette made landfall on Baja). That's really something though. Suppose this is a real record breaker in twos. [[User:68-100-190-56|'''IP]] 22:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC) ::::According to NHC, the center of Barry didn't officially make landfall until it was a tropical depression. -- [[User:SkyFury|''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury'']] 14:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)